Being Explicit: Dating is Either Adultery or Prostitution

 There is no such thing as dating. The only question is whether she's going behind her pimp's back, or you're paying her pimp. 

 "These adulteresses keep cheating on me." Shocking.

 "Why does this prostitute have other johns?" Dot dot dot. 

 

 Much of the reason a modern woman gets a boyfriend is that she can't pretend, even to herself, that she's contravening her dad's authority. She needs a pseudo-husband so she can [[date]] behind his back, the way she's supposed to. In a usurper regime, naturally [[romance]] is supposed to be adultery. That's just the culture. 

 Obviously playing pretend-marriage with these kinds of women isn't going to work. Your best shot in this environment is to find a woman who is delusional and thinks you're asking her dad to arrange a marriage with you, and has forgotten that divorce exists. By chance, a woman's feminine delusions can be useful, it's merely very very rare.

Jews Were Allowed Their Own Country, and Look What Happened

 You can really tell why jews hate nationalism so much. They can't into. They can't even.

 I think this article gives you a good flavour of how israelism turns out. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/israels-path-of-peril

 This sort of result makes perfect sense given general jewish character. If they're not someone's lapdog, they immediately go to pieces. It doesn't help that they make annoying lapdogs. Shrill or yappy, not very fuzzy. Poor quality. 

 Israel was created by fiat, specifically british fiat. It was one of the most terrible fates the british could have condemn jews to suffer. Lapdogs, deprived of a lap, having to fend for themselves. Hitler spinning counter-clockwise in his grave, from envy.
 The jews can't blame anyone else for the bad end. They should, britain gave land to the jew knowing exactly what he would do to himself as a result, but naturally the jew is far too prideful to admit to being so readable and predictable.

 There's the kind of jew that's self-aware but so narcissistic they think every nation would work out the same as israel does and has. They try to suppress nationalism because they're meddling busybodies with grandiose egos, but aside from that you can't say they have evil intent. Then there's the kind of jew one step more aware, who knows other peoples don't suffer jewish neuroticism, who frantically suppresses nationalism out of incandescent envy. They know nationalism would be better, which is exactly why they're so desperate to prevent it.

 Of course, other peoples deserve it. Jewish blandishments work because blandishments are in demand. Jews are merely the most competent suppliers of Satanic Sophistry.

 P.S. Jews are the most narcissistic people on the planet. It can be called close only optimistically. Like all crazies, if you know their exact damage, they are tediously predictable. Jews in particular favour vulnerable narcissism. If there isn't a victim narrative they can tell, they will manufacture a perpetrator by hook or by crook. Israel literally funds Hamas. With money. Cash.
 The only question is whether the border was ordered to let the october attack through, or whether netz & co could safely rely on the incompetence of their armed forces. Incapable of stopping a hang glider. The latter seems probable, given their subsequent performance. However, they might be self-sabotaging so as to avoid accidentally removing their perpetrator from the equation.

 P.P.S. Why do jews want to rape prisoner so bad? To provoke a higher-intensity conflict. If they're not shitting their pants about some external enemy, they instantly fall to infighting. Vulnerable narcissists are all about kicking the dog until it bites, then getting a "saviour" to shoot the dog by spinning a victim narrative about a terrible bitey dog. They commit escalating niggling trespasses until you blow up on them.

 If they can't get palestinians or germans to victimize them, they compete to provoke victimization from each other. Identical twins will turn on each other, unable to agree on who is the victim and who is the perp.

 The smart money is staying the hell away from israel, lest it drag you into its bullshit. Social distance, but not six feet. Ten yard poles minimum.
 By making israel, britain effectively expelled a bunch of jews, and made it seem like it was their own idea. 

 Social distance...or fulfilling their genocide fantasies. Everyone would be happier if they were supplied the victimization they so desperately crave. Stalin tried it, worked out great for him.

POSIWID: Tinder

 Adopting tinder makes women anxious, crazy to the prescribed-drugs level, depressed, man-hating.

 If that wasn't what tinder was for, women would stop using it.

Turing Completeness vs. Learning Disability

 I've said before humans are turing complete and shouldn't be unable to learn anything.

 I believe I was wrong to say this. Now I believe learning disabilities are so common that they're taken for granted. It's normal. 

 Dyslexia, dyscalculia, autism, asperger's are obvious examples. The IQ may be fine, but there's cognitive blockages. I think there are dozens or hundreds of other, nonobvious examples, which explains normative behaviour.

 There are several individuals who never say anything batshit or retarded. E.g. Hans Herman Hoppe. It's hard to tell how smart they are, because they all sound the same. Despite not being socially connected, they have no substantial disagreements. No reason to raise their voices at each other. Could peacefully hold thanksgiving dinner together, without any speech filters.
 You can posit there's some maximum IQ, and Hoppe has it. This is probably batshit.
 More likely, Hoppe lacks any learning disabilities. Unlike essentially all of the rest of humanity, he's capable of thinking anything through.

 It so rare that I would cheerfully agree they're simply not human. The human condition includes several entries from a set of learning disabilities, and if you don't share them, you have transcended Caino Hypocriens.

 

 In some cases the learning disability may be ideological. They were exposed to such a terrible psychohazard as a child that they're forever incapable of thinking clearly near the deformed meme. I would expect most of the disabilities to be structural biological solecisms. Knots in the brain - can't massage those out. The skull's in the way, what with the brain dying as a response to massage.

Reminder: Class Size Effect Dominates All Other Instuction Effects

 When producing industrial artifacts, doing things in batches is more profitable. The bigger the batch, the better. Everyone who doesn't buy in bulk is loading the economy up with a huge strain and making us all dramatically poorer.

 In shocking esoteric news, children are not industrial artifacts. Don't exactly come in standard shapes and sizes. Increasing the size of the batch of children you're instructing has catastrophic effects. A class of more than about four at once is a waste of time. By the time the class is 24, the kids will learn faster with the instructor absent than when they are present. Even a softling retard teaching themselves is more effective, due to a class size of one, than a class of that size taught by the greatest communicator who ever lived. 

Wisdom Sociologically

 A cooperative society must be wise. It is the primary virtue.

 A wise society must commit to believing true things. 

 First, it must commit to believing something at all. The group, more particularly its leader, must have an explicit dogma. 

 Next, it must commit to allowing itself to be proven wrong. The beliefs must be cast in the most vulnerable form. The beliefs cannot be spared exposure to any test which they might fail. Only the most robust beliefs can be allowed to survive. 

 Third, it must explicitly persecute lies, lying, and liars. Encouraging disproofs does much of this, but disproofs can be faked. The tells for fakery need to be explicitly persecuted. Even if a signal might be true, if it could be faked, it can't be used. Again, encouraging disproof does much of this: signals must be actively verified, actively proven. Never assumed correct before replication. All ideas are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

 Harshly testing beliefs, discarding failed beliefs, discarding possibly-fraudulent evidence, and refusing to forward possibly-fraudulent evidence all require great discipline. It is well beyond Democratic Man. 

 As a stupid yet illustrative example, a properly wise society can't say [good day to you] or any of its variants. Spoofing this is trivial. It should be well-known that this is spoofable, thus anyone saying it can be assumed to be intentionally spoofing you. Extraordinarily rude. "Oh, how gullible do you think I am?" P.S. The society would likewise be aware of the buddhist koan, and know the insulter profanes himself, not the target.

 Likewise, you can't ask a stranger how they're feeling, because the Nash equilibrium is to lie to that question. Expecting them not to lie is to assume weird and creepy levels of intimacy, wholly unsuitable for a stranger. 

 Fourth, the meta-dogma. Actually, the disproofs of logical positivism are all bullshit. Or batshit. Or both. 

 Even the idea that ideas can and should be challenged can itself be challenged - it's merely that the challenge will always fail. Faith in challenge will survive all tests, on account of being true. Contra the anti-positivists: it is their position, that some ideas cannot be challenged, which is self-contradictory. I take the position that challenge is unchallengeable, anti-positivism proves positivism, QED.

 There's an epistemic third rail which can't be defined without going circular. Learning can't be learned, you have to already know. Identity is identical. Predictions are predictive. Existence, we say, Exists.

 This belief is the core dogma if a wise leader.

 The wise define a true belief as one that allows understanding of and foreseeing the future. You can't cooperate if you don't know which actions lead to the consequences you've promised to bring about. You can't cooperate if you don't know the consequences you want to promise are impossible to bring about. 

 Corollary: possible ideas can always be tested in a prediction duel. Edge case: meaningless ideas can't be tested, but if they have no significant consequences, testing them is pointless. 

 Wise leaders believe the future is foreseeable, that the tools of foresight are testable, and that scholastic security is affordable. Consequences are knowable, and the tools for investigating consequences are known & profitable.

 P.P.S. Don't forget [I don't know] is a valid position. Sometimes the evidence proves there is no good evidence either way. 

 P.P.P.S. Don't forget the conclusion that some special future is unforeseeable is also a valid and possible conclusion.

 Related:

 https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2021/12/three-deadly-sins.html

 https://alrenous.blogspot.com/2023/08/scholars-cant-not-rule.html

France Hates French

 Speaking french makes it sound like you're about to puke. Throat forcing itself open uncontrollably, to clear the path. This is what no consonants does to a motherfucker. With no exaggeration, written french is an abomination. When they say it's corrupt, vulgar latin, they are being polite.

 It manages to be worse than what the english have done to english. Amazing.

Worth Repeating: Disproving Anti-Positivism

 I haven't dunked on the [[disproof]] of logical positivism in a while, so it's time to do it again. 

 During my research for this post, I came across the claim that language is communal and requires coordination. This Satanist has clearly never encountered math. Let x=3. Let x=5.

 As long as you put the [let {word} have {meaning}] line in, you can have things mean whatever you want. 

 Let [dojo] refer to curtains. Now I will close the dojo. Oh, the dojo are already closed, I shall open a half. "But that's work!" whines the incompetent reader. Democratic Man can't into discipline and need not apply, yes. That's true. 

 Indeed, when engaging in the art formerly known as philosophy, it is necessary to redefine words. Natural meanings aren't nearly good enough to get anything done. In spade words, natural languages are amateur languages, unsuitable for professionals.
 Admittedly it would likely be better to coin brand new words rather than attempting to precisely file and polish ye olde words. Perhaps philosophy fell because they didn't do this. Or perhaps revenge is sour - they didn't do this because philosophers were losers to start with, always doomed to fall. This was merely a warning sign.

 I'ma keep not doing it, tho. 

 

 P.S. Modern defences of positivism seem to be, "They weren't saying what you disproved."
 Okay, first, yeah of course they were. Don't be more autistic than me. Second, if any of them weren't saying it, they should have been.

 

 Unverifiable statements are in fact meaningless. This is because the previous statement is a tautology. Orange statements are orange. Interactive statements are interactive. Supervenience statements are supervenient. Unravelling statements are unravelling. 

 The meaning of a statement is what you use to verify it. In this case, meaning is merely prediction. A meaningful statement has some relevance to the world. 

 We also have to deal with the false beliefs of empiricists and their opponents. The distinction between empirical and non-empirical is meaningless. The normal definition of [metaphysics] is an empty set. A soul is a kind of body. Less biological, maybe, but a body all the same. Descartes' mindstuff is still a substance. Logical experiments aren't unempirical, and I will perform one in a bit.

 For a statement to be unverifiable, it has to have no relevance to anything. In other words, to be in fact saying nothing at all. There is no claim there. 

 If you're making an unverifiable statement about god, you're actually making no statement at all. It's a trick of smoke and mirrors. It works when the listener hears something other than what you in fact said - some verifiable claim. Usually a motte and bailey gambit. E.g. when christians claim god is unknowable and ineffable, what you're supposed to hear is that when the priest tells you god wants you to do something, you're not allowed to dispute the claim. Also, not actually unverifiable.

 "God is good." Okay, what do you mean by [good]? What's the definition here? 

 If there is no decision affected by believing or discrediting this statement, then it is meaningless. A statement stating nothing. If it affects no decisions, then it is also unverifiable. No decision will have a surprising consequence for doubting it, which means it can neither be confirmed nor denied. 

 Generally it's not meaningless though. It means you should worship god, usually. Then worship will have some alleged consequences. We will have a set of predictions to confirm or deny.

 

 Logical experiment: imagine a verifiable but meaningless statement. It would have to be a statement with a downstream test, except it has no downstream tests. Otherwise the result of that test would be a meaning - perhaps a very minor meaning. [Coloured dairy products are filiboogum.] Let filiboogum mean disliked by a cat owned by a certain pre-socratic Egyptian, during the hours of 3 and 12 am six weeks and three days after a solar eclipse. Likewise, any meaningful but unverifiable statement is a contradiction in terms.  

 Whoopsie doodle. Just tested the supposedly untestable statement. Used something empirical that's allegedly anti-empirical.

 Namelessism adherents hate LP because it highlights truly unverifiable statements. The ur-example being, "I'm not lying to you." Errr...yes, that's exactly what a liar would say. The evidence relevant to the statement is controlled by exactly the entity whose trustiness is under challenge.

 Statements about the food preferences of ancient cats, who probably never even encountered dairy with food colouring, are likewise unverifiable. The evidence is either locked away or has been destroyed. In every mortal sense, it is neither true nor false. It is by now, and ever always will be, impossible for mortals to distinguish a world where coloured dairy is filiboogum, and one where it isn't. A meaningless statement. 

 Satanists regularly rely on statements of inaccessible internal states, which, epistemically speaking, are neither true nor false as far as everyone else is concerned. This is the true reason logical positivism became unpopular. It's politically incorrect. Suppresses supply of lies...and lies are in desperate demand. 

 

 Again: one kind of statement where it bodily doesn't matter if it's true or not. Another where the offered evidence is controlled by the author of the statement such that the world looks exactly the same whether it's true or not. Either no evidence can exist, or they're trying to focus you on something that isn't evidence.

 

 It gets worse. The statement that some statements are unverifiable is equivalent to the statement that some statements cannot be challenged. 

 "Some things can't be questioned. If they're true, you just have to believe them."

 Anti-positivism is the true self-contradictory ideology. If some statements are unchallengeable, then, great: I take [all statements are unchallengeable] as my unverifiable statement. Sogol goes kaboom when exposed to logic.